Hydro Junkie

I don't think this needs to go to the principal. Maybe the Vice Principal or a Counselor

franklin_m

Don't disagree. However, AMA membership revenue has been declining steadily for 15 years already - despite all the "pretty smart" people running it. And the decline is accelerating.

So they ARE listening? Like when they "listened" to Bob Violett and others who said don't welcome drones/FPV because it would bring result in "lose our freedom to operate model airplanes?" If memory serves, the board was split. In public policy it's said to not make big changes unless there's broad support. An evenly split board is not broad support. Yet Bob Brown cast that deciding vote. And see where we are now ... right where Violett said we'd be.

A lot of resources? Talk about a low bar. In terms of objective measures over 2008 to 2018 (their IRS 990 filings) , they've spent more on office supplies ($1.6 million in constant 2018 dollars) then they've spent on lobbying ($1.3 million). If that's "a lot of resources," you and I have very different definitions. As for doing "...good job at it..."? They lost on registration. They never pushed the court case. Lost on saving 336. Lost on preventing operational limits. If that's "a good job" ... I'd sure hate to see a bad job!

Once again, acknowledgement that AMA has problems, but we'll fix them after ______ fill in blank ______. That's what we heard when the issue was registration. That's what we heard when the issue was saving 336. That's what we heard when the issue was preventing operational limits. And that's what we're hearing yet again for RemoteID. The problem is, those fixes never happen.

jester_s1

I'm only going to respond to one point in the above post. AMA doing a good job/bad job.
What a bad job looks like: There were a couple of ways the AMA could have royally screwed us over with the FAA.

1. The first is taking a hard stance, as many members wanted, to demand there be no regulations at all. The FAA would have simply dismissed the AMA reps as unreasonable and done what they wanted, probably a lot more than the $5 every 3 years registration and 400 foot ceiling. As it was, the AMA got us a decent deal in a climate where the FAA had to do something if only just so they could look to outsiders that they did something. Others on the other side of the conversation wanted a lot more.
2. Argue for the separation of drones from RC aircraft. Again, it was the populist choice, but a losing strategy. The FAA thinking was already that they were the same, and had the AMA spent its time with the FAA arguing that they'd have come away with nothing. Then the fallout afterwards would have been permanent alienation from the fastest growing segment of the RC hobby and the door closed to future interest in the AMA from drone operators. Many will say that drone pilots won't ever be interested in the AMA; maybe they are right. But I think we can all agree that being friendly is preferred to being at odds.
3. Give in to the other side and throw model pilots under the bus with ridiculous regulations. In that scenario, I think the hate some have now for the AMA would be justified. But that's not what they did.

The AMA was in a tough position, and saw that they weren't going to be able to get everything that model pilots wanted. So they did the smart thing- they asked for what they potentially could get and minimized the impact on the hobby as best they could. That's real world advocacy and good leadership. Rigidly demanding what one wants just gets one dismissed from the process, and those who wanted the AMA to do that, had they done it, would now be complaining that the AMA reps weren't diplomatic enough. There was no way we were going to get everything we wanted, so I appreciate that the AMA was wise enough to get us whatever they could. The process could have gone a lot worse.

Hydro Junkie

I would agree, in principle with your three points. With that said, I would also ask that you consider something else, that the AMA put themselves in that tough position.
You're probably not going to agree with me on that but, as an outsider looking in, I see things a bit differently.
What has the AMA tried to do when negotiating with the FAA?

1. They tried to get the FAA to require anyone that flies anything to be an AMA member. This would mean ANYONE flying anything would be subject to prosecution for not having an AMA card.
2. They bypassed the FAA and went to Congress to get 336 included into the appropriation bill while supposedly negotiating in good faith
3. They told members to fly as always even after the FAA had published the 400 foot ceiling restriction. In short, the EC told the members to break the law
4. They have pushed the FRIA concept, not mentioning that to fly at a FRIA(which is essentially an AMA sanctioned flying site) you had to join the AMA and the club that controlled the FRIA site

Seems to me that the AMA hasn't been negotiating in good faith as much as they have tried to get the FAA to require membership through the lawbooks. If I was the FAA negotiator, I would have a hard time trusting anything the AMA said since they have a history of deception and self serving tactics. As someone that isn't a member, I would go directly to the FAA and get a 107 certificate since it would be cheaper and easier than getting an AMA and club membership.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

With all due respect, in order to have beneficial conversations (as you state you do), you should not make statements that you are not willing to answer to. Pretty convenient to make statements and not have to answer to them, don't you think? Irresponsible at least.

This statement is rubbish! Pure speculation, based on no facts whatsoever. If this is your opinion, fine. You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, but the way you worded it above is that it is a factual statement and it most certainly is not. Nobody knows what would have happened given a different approach.

Again, absolute rubbish! The FAA has admitted numerous times that it recognizes the difference between a traditional model and a drone. Furthermore, you continue to speculate what would have happened if...I wish I had your crystal ball....

Maybe? I think the numbers (or lack thereof) have proven that the folks who told the AMA that years ago were absolutely correct, no maybe about it. That ship has sailed.

Another logical fallacy and a popular narrative from the AMA fanboy camp. Defining the differences and creating different categories or classes of RC craft based on their capabilities and how those different capabilities affect the NAS, would not need to create any, "odds" between groups whatsoever. Again, this narrative is simply not true. and no, we don't all agree!

When you quit throwing shade and labeling those who have criticized the performance of the AMA as, "haters", these conversations may become more beneficial. I have stated numerous times that I have no hate for the AMA, rather a passion for them/us and a desire to see them/us succeed and be successful and relevant in the future.

Not factual, this is what you guess they thought. Again, you pronounce it as fact. It is not.

Says who? Is that your opinion?

Says who? is that your opinion? it is certainly not mine, and what is that based on?

Based on what?

According to whom?

Says whom? Certainly not consensus. As I stated earlier, most folks going into discussion will shoot for the moon (and more), in order to get the majority (if not all), of whatever they may be seeking. To go into negotiation with what you think you can get is absolute rubbish. You allude that asking for the entire enchilada is somehow frowned upon. That couldn't be further from the truth, either.

Says who? Again, you state this as fact. If it is your opinion, fine, please fix it so it reads that way. You say that by profession you are an educator. I will assume you have a good enough command of the written word to post in the proper syntax in order that your point be clearly portrayed and not misunderstood.

Again, your words as written, state these things as facts, which they clearly are not.

If you and others wish these threads to be more productive, please edit your narratives to clearly identify when you are projecting your opinions and when you are stating facts. If you want to partake in these threads, it is your responsibility to clearly portray your thoughts, not my responsibility to read between the lines of what you type.

Regards,

Astro

FUTABA-RC

Curious, have you actually obtained a Part 107 certificate?

As far as ease goes writing two checks (one to AMA one to a club) is much easier than studying to pass the exam, which also costs $150 every 2 years ($75/yr in effect).
Part 107 also requires individual registration of every aircraft. Same $5/3 year cost as recreational but multiplied by the number of models you have.
It also subjects you to a more restrictive set of rules with actual enforcement provisions for them. For instance, no night flying without a waiver (I have one under my 107).

So to state the getting and maintaining a Part 107 certificate is cheaper and easier than joining the AMA and a club seems a little out of touch with the actual facts of the situation.

Here is a nice set of example questions for the 107 test (Which you have to take every 2 years).

https://jrupprechtlaw.com/part-107-knowledge-test/

franklin_m

Interesting, you mention the test questions as if they're difficult. May I remind you that for years AMA has been telling the FAA that its members are already knowledgeable about the airspace, as part of their justification why AMA membership should warrant a waiver from requirements. I humbly submit that if they're as knowledgeable as AMA said they are, such questions should be easy. But since you write as if they're not, then perhaps the AMA's statements about member knowledge are less than true? And I believe FAA is smart enough to know that ... which is why they don't put a lot of credibility in AMA statements.

And the soon to be implemented testing requirement doesn't care about AMA members' "knowledge." There will be no requirement to take the test with AMA, as there will be more than one venue. Even AMA admits there's double digit numbers of groups that have requested authority to give tests. And I also note that if AMA has to do ANY prep at all for their members to pass the test, in the form of publishing any material to make it easier, then I submit this is more proof that AMA members are not as knowledgable as AMA has said they are.

And with that test from FAA, they will be putting in place one more component that negates reasons for people turn to AMA to fly recreationally. First was interpretation that 336 did not require membership. Next was killing off 336 entirely. Third was replacing the "...and..." with an "...or...". Fourth will be the multiple ways to take the test required by 349. And I'm sure there's more coming.

FUTABA-RC

First, we are not talking about what the AMA has been saying, but I understand all your wires somehow touch the AMA in some way.

Second, certainly the test was easy I am certain for a Naval Flight Officer with significant experience. I am a lowly PPL (not current so I took the test) and it was not a real challenge. But I see the comments of a large number of people with little or no aviation experience and most saw the test as a challenge that took a good deal of prep.

My point regarding the test was:

1) it is more difficult than simply writing 2 checks (AMA + cub)
2) It is recurrent costing $150 each time it is taken, oh I forgot to mention, if you fail it you will pay the $150 fee the next time you take it.

I made no statements about what the AMA has been telling the FAA or anyone else.

Since we know next to nothing about the coming recreational sUAS test, all of your statements are pure conjecture. And one more time, it has nothing to do with the statements I made or the point I was making.

Non-AMA post: The Sun rose today.

FranklinM response: Are you saying the AMA made the sun rise and that they only want it to rise on their members?

Stay on topic Franklin.

In summary, I made the simple point that obtaining and maintaining a Part 107 certificate is at least as costly and clearly more involved (hence more difficult) than merely writing 2 checks(1 to AMA + 1 to a club).

No other statements or points relative to the AMA were made or implied.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

The test is no-fail. No prep needed, get a question wrong and you get prompted to make another choice till you hit the right one.

FUTABA-RC

That is certainly much easier than the Part 107 test. It is definitely Pass/Fail and if you fail you need to come back and pay another $150 to take it again. I have seen people that took 3 tries to pass, although the majority pass first time with proper preparation.

jester_s1

On the topic that the AMA angled for increasing its membership through regulations:

Yep, they did do that. It came across a little shady, and might have cost the AMA some respect from the FAA. Or maybe not. But probably so, at least a little.
On the other side of it though, AMA membership was and still is a viable solution to the concern of untraceable, unregistered, and uninsured drone pilots flying with no established safety code and endangering people and property. Membership in AMA or a similar insurance provider would have alleviated that major concern. It wasn't exactly a crazy idea.
Also, the AMA was spending its members' dues money and contributions to negotiate with the FAA. It's only reasonable to want to recoup some of that through increased membership.

In the end, the ploy didn't work because no one at the FAA wanted to make any real new requirements that they'd then have to enforce. It's a bummer too, because if they had the AMA could have established a drone pilot branch of itself and become a provider of competition, training, insurance, and a direct pathway into the drone career. As it is, everybody is still wildcatting, and it's anybody's guess how it all will work out in the next few years.

Desertlakesflying

My Feedback: (28)

AMA has consistently shown its inept incompetence. The FAA for example, wouldn't be up our asses with all these new regulations they want to impose if the AMA had done their job instead of try to swell their pocketbooks by romancing a group that will never be reigned in. I'm about done with paying the AMA. Good thing out west we have many places to fly that don't involve the AMA.

FUTABA-RC

You seriously think the AMA is to blame for all this? Wow.

This has been in the works for a long time and it is now national security agencies driving the bus. Not to mention commercial interests. But sure, AMA did it. Why not?

Hydro Junkie

My point was and is that the AMA has shown more effort and funds being directed at expanding the membership and, in doing so, increasing it's treasury. I'm not willing to pay the AMA to waste funds on things that most will never see or use and, more importantly, $75 per year to the FAA is a heck of a lot cheaper than paying club dues AND the $75 per year shown on the AMA website to be able to fly.
As I see it, I paid my membership fee to NAMBA for this year and never got a boat wet. Why would I want to spend at least $150 more if I only get to fly once or twice due to weather, work and other obligations if I can spend only $75 and be able to fly from any suitable location? I just can't see the sense in spending that kind of money for no real gain and, in today's world, wasting anything can and will come back to haunt you

FUTABA-RC

If you prefer the 107 route, that's great. But to imply it is both easier and cheaper than simply joining the AMA and a club is not supported by reality. Yes, over 2 years it works out to $75 per year. Then factor in the study time/materials and the cost of registering every single model you want to fly and the cost difference becomes less apparent.

To be clear, I am not arguing FOR the AMA, I am arguing that the statement that going 107 is easier and cheaper is objectively false.

Hydro Junkie

Okay, it comes down to a difference of opinion and that I can deal with. For me, it's easier and cheaper, to others, maybe not so much.
BTW, THANK YOU for keeping this a civil conversation. As someone said in a previous post, it's refreshing to see an exchange where there isn't a bunch of name calling and other crap.

FUTABA-RC

BTW, anyone considering going 107 bone up on aviation weather, runways markings, reading sectional charts, and airspace.

jester_s1

I agree with FUTABA-RC- some kind of regulation was coming no matter what. With a general societal trend toward regulating everything and wanting safety above all else, it was bound to happen. With the super cool new tech of drones, the actual need for some regulations was created. It's unfortunate for us traditional RC pilots to have to deal with it, but the AMA had no chance of stopping it altogether.

Desertlakesflying

My Feedback: (28)

The AMA is 100% to blame as they were more worried about getting in bed with the FAA to bring the drone people in to pad their bank account.

The AMA using the FAA to force drone users into the AMA is all they cared about, which is 100% why we are where we are today.

Now we have big money from Amazon and company pouring into the FAA, so the FAA cares even less as the AMA keeps the blinders on and tries to get drone people to pay for memberships instead of protect our hobby.

Oh and all of you who keep voting for more government you are going to get more government than all the free stuff they keep promising on the backs of others. So if you voted for more government you should just stay quiet.

FUTABA-RC

So now you have changed your focus. Originally you seemed to be implying that the AMA was the prime mover/cause of the FAA regulatory efforts.

Now you are unhappy about how the AMA responded to the threat of regulation. FWIW I agree that AMA dropped the ball. But it is not factually supported to think they were the root cause of this situation. I do agree they have not done much to improve the situation.

franklin_m

Every action has consequences. Some are immediate and direct, some are delayed and indirect. Until AMA decided to embrace drones / FPV, there was the possibility that FAA and Congress could promulgate a regulatory framework that kept them separate under the law. MRs and traditional model aircraft and helos are easy to distinguish visually. But in their effort to boost membership, an effort that failed miserably, AMA embraced drones/FPV over objections of half the board and prominent members. That forever removed the bright line distinctions possible like the one above. Remember, Congress works broad swaths, not surgical precision. And we see where we're at today. Regulated right alone with the MRs/FPVs that AMA embraced. I argue that's why the distinction was important. And we cannot un-ring that bell. Thanks AMA ... "Great job!"

So then AMA spent considerable time and effort to pass 336. In doing so, they showed the FAA that AMA doesn't negotiate in good faith ... running to "Mom" (Congress) when they can't get what they want from FAA. Bureaucracies HATE that, and the people on those FAA staffs have long memories. And then AMA turned around and tried to use that law to compel membership. How much credibility was lost (with FAA and with Congress) when it was pointed out any number of AMA public statements that explicitly said they viewed the law as "requiring" membership? Thankfully FAA set the record straight, and some smart staffers saw through AMA's duplicity and changed a key word from "and" to "or" in 349. And again, more credibility lost. It turns out Congressional staffs don't like being mislead as to intentions either.

So how much staff time and lobbying effort was spent on these follies? You can't get those dollars back. And the result of those efforts alienated the vast majority of non-members. Remember our Dear Leader Hanson's OpEd calling for FAA to enforce against non-members? There's over one million non-members, and barely more than 100,000 members, and all Hanson did was drive them further away. "Great job!"

So now their membership revenue is cratering, accelerating a decline that's been consistent over the better part of the last 20 years. Virtually every non-dues revenue is down as well. Yet staff size remains the same or is even growing. Staff salaries continue to rise. Executives are paid handsome salaries that put them in the top 1% of the salaries in Muncie, and top 5% of all salaries in Indiana. They're being rewarded for their mediocrity.

And it's our money.

FUTABA-RC

Do you have any evidence of this, or is it simply conjecture on your part?

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Conjecture.

I can tell you they always considered us one and the same

jester_s1

Separating multi rotors and RC airplanes and helicopters simply wasn't going to happen. It would have been sensible to define the difference as having a camera or autonomous flight capability or not, but even then the public would have probably still been nervous. I kinda figured when it all started that regulating model planes was probably something they'd been wanting to do for years but didn't have a good enough reason yet. Yes, that's pure conjecture on my part, but you've gotta figure the FAA would have been thinking about that as soon as RC tech became practical in the 70's. I know I would if I had that kind of responsibility on me.

Hydro Junkie

Two people in Seattle should have showed how different the drone is from the traditional model. When someone launched a drone in downtown Seattle, did laps with it around the Space Needle at 500ft and videoed inside apartments 10 to 15 stories up, that should have said something, especially when this all happened in the immediate proximity of multiple FAA approved helipads(some of them at hospitals). Add to that, a few months later, another drone hitting the "BIG WHEEL" on the waterfront, just blocks from the Seattle Center(the location of the Space Needle), this again should have said something. Add to this that the second incident resulted in the drone having a prop damaged and falling to the ground where it was picked up by police officers. There was no question as to what it was and even less questioning of what it represented. Had the AMA paid attention, this could have been the time to separate traditional aircraft from the multirotors. Instead, the AMA used this as an excuse to try to make it law that to fly a drone, you had to be a member. We all know how that played out